NEW YORK - It is now well understood that one of the crucialdrivers of the crises in the Middle East is the discontent of itsyouth. Arab countries have been unable or unwilling to provide jobs,education, opportunity and rights for their young and so, finally,they revolted. Is there any lesson in this story for the UnitedStates? Not directly; there is no analogy between Middle Easterndictatorships and American democracy. But if the troubles of Arabyouth make us shine a light on the state of America's youth, thepicture that emerges is grim.
As countries get rich, you might assume that they focus greaterattention on their children. Not in the United States. The federalgovernment's expenditures on children have shrunk as a share of thebudget over the past 30 years. In 1960, about 20 percent of thefederal budget went to programs dedicated to the health, developmentand education of Americans under the age of 18. Today it's 10percent and falling.
By contrast, spending on the elderly has skyrocketed, doubling asa percentage of the budget during that time. Spending on SocialSecurity and Medicare alone makes up close to 40 percent of thebudget. In a decade, that share will rise considerably, perhaps toas much as half the federal budget. Whatever the exact percentagesare - what you define as programs for children and the elderly canvary - the conclusion is clear: The federal government spendsbetween $4 and $5 on elderly people for every dollar it spends onchildren.
Why is this happening? To put it bluntly, children don't vote ormake campaign contributions, and the elderly do both aggressively.Our political system is hyper-responsive to votes and money, so thenatural consequence is that those who organize, vote and send indollars are looked after. Maybe we need to let toddlers form PACs.
In fact, the contrast between what we spend on the old and theyoung is part of a broader problem that threatens America's economicfuture. Look at the economic debate in Washington: We continue toavoid dealing with the large entitlement programs and the largestdomestic giveaways, such as the tax deduction for mortgage interest.No tax increases, such as a value-added tax or a gas tax, are evenremotely possible. Instead, legislators make a show of cutting thebudget by trumpeting the savings in the much smaller pie ofdiscretionary spending - slashing education, infrastructure, scienceand other such programs.
The net effect is that the United States will continue tomassively subsidize consumption and starve investment. This isexactly the opposite of what history tells us produces long-termeconomic growth. The American economy is already far too focused onconsumption and credit. And not only will this approach have limitedbenefits to the budget - any fiscal discipline that does not tackleentitlement spending is a charade - but we are cutting in preciselythe areas where we should increase spending. From China to SouthKorea to Germany, countries are making large investments for futuregrowth at the moment we are pruning such expenditures.
Again, the reasons are clear: There is no political will to takeon the subsidies and spending that are consumption-related. And yetwe need to find budget cuts, so lawmakers look to the easy place tofind them: on the investment side of the budget. The result,however, will be disastrous for the country's long-term health.
President Obama sounded this call for investment in his State ofthe Union address. His budget tries to preserve and even expandspending in key areas that will contribute to future growth. But hefaces a Republican Party that is fixated by a budget-cuttingmentality yet refuses to propose entitlement cuts, and in which asledgehammer is preferred to a scalpel. And America's businesscommunity is sitting on the sidelines, betting its future on thegrowth in foreign countries (which themselves are making hugeinvestments for their growth).
America's growth and prosperity during the past few decades havebeen consequences of major investments made in the 1950s and 1960s.Some of those are the interstate highway system; a public educationsystem that was the envy of the world; massive funding for scienceand technology that produced the semi-conductor industry, large-scale computing, the Internet and the global positioning system.When we look back in 20 years, what investments will we point tothat created the next generation of growth for the next generationof Americans?
Zakaria is a columnist for The Washington Post.
No comments:
Post a Comment